can be used to compute the Laplacian in non-rectangular coordinates. Is that the easiest way to do this?

How about just sequential applications of the gradient on the vector? Let’s start with the vector product of the gradient and the vector. First recall that the cylindrical representation of the gradient is

All the bivector grades of the Laplacian operator are seen to explicitly cancel, regardless of the grade of \( \psi \), just as if we had expanded the scalar Laplacian as a dot product
\( \spacegrad^2 \psi = \spacegrad \cdot \lr{ \spacegrad \psi} \).
Unlike such a scalar expansion, this derivation is seen to be valid for any grade \( \psi \). We know now that we can trust this result when \( \psi \) is a scalar, a vector, a bivector, a trivector, or even a multivector.

Vector Laplacian

Now that we trust that the typical scalar form of the Laplacian applies equally well to multivectors as it does to scalars, that cylindrical coordinate operator can now be applied to a
vector. Consider the projections onto each of the directions in turn

When computing the most general solution of the electrostatic potential in a plane, Jackson [1] mentions that \( -2 \lambda_0 \ln \rho \) is the well known potential for an infinite line charge (up to the unit specific factor). Checking that statement, since I didn’t recall what that potential was offhand, I encountered some inconsistencies and non-convergent integrals, and thought it was worthwhile to explore those a bit more carefully. This will be done here.

Using Gauss’s law.

For an infinite length line charge, we can find the radial field contribution using Gauss’s law, imagining a cylinder of length \( \Delta l \) of radius \( \rho \) surrounding this charge with the midpoint at the origin. Ignoring any non-radial field contribution, we have

When the charge is uniformly distributed around the origin \( [a,b] = b[-1,1] \) the \( \zcap \) component of this field is killed because the integrand is odd. This justifies ignoring such contributions in the Gaussing cylinder analysis above. The general solution to this integral is found to be

Before \( \Delta l \) is allowed to tend to infinity, this is identical (up to a difference in the reference potential) to \ref{eqn:lineCharge:80} found using Gauss’s law. It is, strictly speaking, singular when \( \Delta l \rightarrow \infty \), so it does not seem right to infinity as a reference point for the potential.

There’s another weird thing about this result. Since this has no \( z \) dependence, it is not obvious how we would recover the non-radial portion of the electric field from this potential using \( \BE = -\spacegrad \phi \)? Let’s calculate the elecric field from \ref{eqn:lineCharge:180} explicitly

When computing the electric field \( \BE(\rho, \theta, z) \), it was convienent to pick the coordinate system so that \( z = 0 \). Doing this with the potential gives the wrong answers. The reason for this appears to be that this kills the potential term that is linear in \( z \) before taking its gradient, and we need that term to have the \( \zcap \) field component that is expected for a charge distribution that is non-symmetric about the origin on the z-axis!

The limit of this potential \( a = -\Delta/2 \rightarrow -\infty, b = \Delta/2 \rightarrow \infty \) doesn’t exist in any strict sense. If we are cavilier about the limits, as in \ref{eqn:lineCharge:200}, this can be evaluated as

For has a PV limit of \ref{eqn:lineCharge:40} at \( z = 0 \), and also for the finite case, has the \( \zcap \) field component that was obtained when the field was obtained by direct integration.

Conclusions

We have to evaluate the potential at all points in space, not just on the axis that we evaluate the field on (should we choose to do so).

In this case, we found that it was not directly meaningful to take the limit of a potential distribution. We can, however, compute the field from a potential for a finite charge distribution,
take the limit of that field, and then calculate the corresponding potential for the infinite distribution.

Is there a more robust mechanism that can be used to directly calculate the potential for an infinite charge distribution, instead of calculating the potential from the field of such an infinite distribution?

I think that were things go wrong is that the integral of \ref{eqn:lineCharge:180} does not apply to charge distributions that are not finite on the infinite range \( z \in [-\infty, \infty] \). That solution was obtained by utilizing an all-space Green’s function, and the boundary term in that Green’s analysis was assumed to tend to zero. That isn’t the case when the charge distribution is \( \lambda_0 \delta( z ) \).

He applies separation of variables to the last equation, ending up with the usual Bessel function solution, but the first two coupled equations are dismissed as coupled and difficult. It looks like separation of variables works for this too, but we have to prep the system slightly by writing \( \psi = E_\rho + j E_\phi \), which gives